The Supreme Court will consider the strength of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Wednesday when it hears a dispute over whether a self-appointed “tester” of the civil rights law has the right to sue hotels over alleged violations of its provisions.
How the justices rule could have a significant impact on the practical effectiveness of the landmark legislation, which aims to shield individuals with disabilities from discrimination in public accommodations and a host of other settings.
At the center of the dispute is Deborah Laufer, a disability rights advocate who has brought hundreds of lawsuits against hotels she says are not in compliance with ADA rules requiring hotels to disclose information about how accessible they are to individuals with disabilities.
Laufer, a Florida resident who uses a wheelchair and has a visual impairment, doesn’t intend to visit the hotels she’s suing. Instead, the complaints are made in an effort to force the hotels to update their websites to be in compliance with the law. Legal experts say the strategy, known as “testing,” is necessary to ensure enforcement of the historic law.
That’s not what’s happening here…
She doesn’t go to these places, and she’s not suing about actual accommodations.
She’s suing every hotel who’s website doesn’t have a blurb about ADA. The big chains all have this, it’s the small local hotels that haven’t updated their websites since the 90s because most of their business is walk in.
Be careful with this reasoning. The Supreme Court decision will apply to all cases if testers, malicious or good faith. The specific case is relevant, obviously, but that’s not all that should be considered.
Yeah, but I get the feeling that the current Supreme Court is going to rule against the tester due to legal standing. I can easily see that tester cases require actual injury.
Yeah, but jumping immediately to lawsuits isn’t the best way to handle this.
The best way would be after a business is notified they have X amount of time to correct the issue. Then if they they don’t, they’re open to lawsuits.
The ADA gets enforced, and small business don’t have to pay out an insane amount of lawyers fees because their website was missing a blurb
The only people “harmed” by that would be lawyers, especially the ones fraudulently billing hours in these cases. And any plaintiffs taking illegal kickbacks from their lawyers.
It seems pretty common sense to me, but what do I know? I’m just a disabled veteran who actually has to deal with this stuff.
I think this particular woman’s actions are a waste of people’s time and money, and are of dubious provenance to “solve” anything. That’s not at all my point.
My point is that a ruling that eliminates “testers” for cases of discrimination, as she claims she is doing here, would have wide-ranging negative implications for civil rights laws throughout the country, not solely the ADA.
The best thing that could really happen here is that the SC moots the case because the websites have been updated - I tend to think that’s the right outcome, since the “harm” was remedied.
But she’s just going to keep suing others…
So why not madate that time to update their websites rather than clogging up the court system and changing them her lawyers fees?
Hell, even including a fine when they were notified would be better than the current situation. At least then the money would go to enforcing the ADA and not just her lawyers who she’s either not vetting or ok with them breaking the law.
I don’t think you’re understanding how big the red flag is that her last lawyer got a six month suspension, and her current lawyer is fighting for their cases not to go to court.
It seems very likely she’s getting kickbacks and found a new shady lawyer willing to keep it going.
The whole thing screams “abuse of the legal system”.
Listen, I get that you don’t like what this woman is doing. I really do. But the solution isn’t to invalidate testers as a legal concept, that’s what you’re not getting. The solution is for Congress to amend the ADA to allow for some sort of curing mechanism on notice issues. Not for the Court to issue some overly broad ruling that invalidates the “tester” concept that’s proven so crucial to proving racial and gender discrimination, which this plaintiff has built her case atop. Maybe there’s a way for them to thread the needle to smack her down and keep that legal concept alive, but I’m not counting on it with this particular Court.
The nation, and you as a disabled vet who benefits from ADA protections, benefits more if she prevails or the case is mooted, than it and you would if the Court decides to undermine the legal concept of a tester. You have to think beyond your initial revulsion over her suing where you think an email would do, the ramifications are bigger than that.
In the meantime, sounds like you have an idea to needle your Senators and/or Congressman about updating the ADA. Seems like the rare bit of legislation where the business lobby might be onboard with helping the little guy instead of fighting it tooth and nail.
Maybe because I’m not saying that should happen?
I’m saying there needs to be a process (or at least a single step) between checking random websites and suing small businesses…
I don’t know why people aren’t getting that, but I get the feeling continuing to explain isn’t going to help
I don’t think anyone disagrees that there should be an intermediate step.
That’s just a problem for Congress to solve, not the Court. The Court is not going to add that step in (nor does it appear the Defendants have asked for that). Congress could end this woman’s trail of lawsuits
tomorrowas soon as the House picks a new Speaker.What the Defendants are arguing is that because she had no intention of staying at the hotel, there is no harm. If you buy into that, then by the same principle, someone who inquires about an apartment to prove that a landlord is racially discriminating can have no standing because they weren’t actually looking to move at that time. I know you probably don’t see those as the same, but that’s the concept the Defendants are arguing against.